All posts tagged Aotearoa

Extinction Rebellion was established in the United Kingdom in October 2018 as a movement that aims to use tactics of nonviolent direct action in order to avert the effects of climate change. Since its formation it has rapidly spread to at least 35 other countries, including New Zealand, who have recently carried a few headline-grabbing protests, with the promise of more to come.

Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement are encouraged by the fact that the movement has managed to tap into the sense of alarm over climate change, and mobilised many people not previously involved in protest, and we do not want to undermine the important work that they are doing, but we feel that there is a conversation that needs to be had about some of their demands.

While we support the means of using direct action tactics it is their ends that needs greater examination. Extinction Rebellion is essentially a reformist movement, whose earnest activists lack a real vision of what is needed if we are serious about halting the damage to our environment. Instead, they are pinning their hopes on merely making adjustments to the present system which is destroying our world.

We argue that this isn’t enough, and the only way to effectively campaign to halt climate change is to impart a true picture of a capitalism whose insatiable hunger for profit is not only undermining the working and living conditions of hundreds of millions of working people but the basis of life itself. The future of our planet depends on building a livable environment and a movement powerful enough to displace capitalism.

Extinction Rebellion Aotearoa NZ are guilty of thinking that their demands can create an idyllic capitalism, managed by the state, that can end the destruction being caused to the Earth’s environment They see their role as just needing to make enough noise to wake up political and business leaders. Theirs is a view which sees capitalism moving towards sustainability and zero growth. It is the idea that capitalism can be reformed to become a green system. In this model of capitalist society lifestyles change and infrastructure are reformed while technical green advances are applied. It supposes that all would be well if we all bought organic food, never took a holiday anywhere which would involve flying, and put on more clothes in winter rather than turn up the heating. Green capitalism presumes it will be enough to replace fossil fuels with renewables, whilst leaving the overall system intact.

We argue that such a scenario completely ignores the way capitalism operates, and must operate, and is therefore hopelessly utopian. The present capitalist system is driven by the struggle for profit. The present system’s need for infinite growth and the finite resources of Earth stand in contradiction to each other. Successful operation of the system means growth or maximising profit, it means that nature as a resource will be exploited ruthlessly. The present destruction of the planet is rooted in the capitalist system of production and cannot be solved without a complete break with capitalism. Yet ending capitalism is something that Extinction Rebellion Aotearoa NZ does not appear to be prepared to countenance, they are only attacking the symptoms rather than the cause. They see their green capitalism as a type of capitalism worth fighting for.

We, rather, see the need to create a different form of social organisation before the present system destroys us all. The entire system of production based on wage labour and capital needs to be replaced with a system which produces for human needs. All the half measures of converting aspects of capitalism to limit the damage to the environment, while the fundamentals of capitalism remain in place, are just wishful thinking, and to pretend they could solve our problems is deception on a grand scale.

The fact is that before production can be carried out in ecologically-acceptable ways capitalism has to go. Production for profit and the uncontrollable drive to accumulate more and more capital mean that capitalism is by its very nature incapable of taking ecological considerations into account properly, and to be honest it is futile to try to make it do so.

A sustainable society that is capable of addressing climate change can only be achieved within a world where all the Earth’s resources, natural and industrial, are under the common ownership of us all, as well as being under grassroots democratic control at a local and regional level. If we are going to organise production in an ecologically sound way we can either plead with the powers that be or we can take democratic control of production ourselves, and the reality is to truly control production we have to own and control the means of production. So, a society of common ownership and democratic control is the only framework within which the aims of Extinction Rebellion can be realised. In reality, to achieve their wish of halting climate collapse, those within Extinction Rebellion should be anarchists.

One of the demands of Extinction Rebellion is a call for participatory democracy, and yet they also talk of giving governments emergency war-time powers. It’s not altogether clear what they mean by this. Does it mean, for example, seizing fossil fuel industries and shutting them down? Enforcing new low-carbon, low-travel, and low-meat shifts in consumption? Or imposing sanctions against companies or countries trafficking in fossil fuels? Will it see imprisonment for those whose protest when they feel their interests may be compromised by green government legislation?

In the past, warlike conditions and major disasters typically were seen to justify the temporary abolition of democratic liberties, but how long will they last for this fight, what will be the endpoint, or will the special war-time powers last indefinitely? Would such a suspension of democracy be easy to reverse anyway? These are big questions, and, for those of us that value the limited freedoms we have, they need to be addressed.

Giving more power to the state is also a case of putting all your eggs in one basket as there is no one simple response to fixing climate change. Climate change will bring many issues, those that we can have a go at predicting, but also many unforeseen. Increasing the powers of the state reduces its ability to be flexible and capable of learning from policy mistakes. The fight against climate change must be associated with greater local democracy. We need more democracy, strengthening local and regional capacities to respond to climate change. For those in Extinction Rebellion who think that there can be only one pathway to addressing climate change, the erosion of democracy might seem to be “convenient.” History, however, tells us that suppression of democracy undermines the capacity of societies to solve problems.

Those campaigning with Extinction Rebellion are no doubt sincere and caring people who want something different for themselves and future generations. In their own lifestyles they probably have made genuine changes which are in line with a more ecologically sustainable way of living. So have we, but we are well aware that our individual lifestyle changes are not going to change the fundamental nature of the social system which is damaging the planet. Millions of us might give up using products which destroy the environment, but what effect do we really have in comparison with the minority who own and control the multinational corporations. Just 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global emissions since 1988. They, and all businesses, have an interest in keeping their costs down, and profits up. If their profits come before the long-term interests of people, who can blame them for sacrificing our needs? They can act no other way.

We do not have faith that capitalists, or their parliamentary representatives, can act in time to limit climate change in a meaningful way, but when we make a call for revolution, the answer we mostly get is that the lesser evil of piecemeal reforms will take less time to achieve than our grand anarchist aims. However, we think it is an ill-advised attitude to take that small improvements are more worthy of support than realisable big ones. There is unlikely ever to be a government passing meaningful green legislation. Governments may pass a few minor reforms to appease green voters, the business owners themselves may realise that some of their brands may be harmed by a lack of environmental concern, and greenwash their product, but ultimately these acts will be a sticking plaster when what is required is major surgery.

If anyone concerned with Extinction Rebellion read this and grasps the impossibility of what they are asking for, then we would say it’s time to keep the methods of direct action that you are advocating, but change the demands. If Extinction Rebellion ever wants their arguments to carry any force, then they need to campaign to abolish capitalism and create a system of grassroots democracy.

In the UK a Green Anti-Capitalist Front has been created to work alongside Extinction Rebellion but with a greater focus on the capitalist roots of climate catastrophe. We feel that such a coalition is needed here in Aotearoa / New Zealand. If anyone is interested in working with us to create such a group we can be contacted via our e-mail address.

Yesterdays post on the petition calling for renaming the country Aotearoa New Zealand – Should New Zealand also be called Aotearoa? – was done in a hurry and put up as something I though worth discussing. here is more information about it.

It was published on 23 May 2018 so has been going for some time. It has just received publicity via Facebook and NZ Herald. It is an official petition on the Parliamentary website:

Petition request

That the House of Representatives pass legislation requiring a referendum, to be held during the term of the current Government, on whether the official name of New Zealand should change to include the name Aotearoa.

Petition reason

Official documents of national identity, birth & citizenship certificates, passports and money-notes have Aotearoa and New Zealand together as the names of the country. Only ‘New Zealand’ has official status. Both names together will officially confirm/enhance nationhood and uniqueness in the world.

52.4% want some form of change, Aotearoa to used in one form or another as a name of our Country

47.4% want no change
– 2,792 respondents.

Some thoughts on the petition from Scott Hamilton:

I support the spirit of this petition, but I wonder its creators have thought through what they’re advocating. They want the name change to be a decolonising gesture, but it could lead to some strange & uncomfortable formulations & titles. Let me give two examples.

In addition to her various other titles, QE2 is officially known as the Queen of New Zealand. That sounds bad enough to my republican ears, but under the proposed name change, she’d ipso facto become Queen of Aotearoa New Zealand. Given the use of Aotearoa by anti-imperialists like Tawhiao, ruler of the Waikato Kingdom, in the 19th century (Tawhiao named his bank, for example, Te Peeke o Aotearoa, & used the name on his currency), allowing QE2 the title Queen of Aotearoa seems like a rather unfortunate move.

There’s also the fact that New Zealand is not just the name of a nation state, but of a rump Pacific empire. The Realm of New Zealand is defined as the entire area where the Queen of NZ is head of state – that includes Tokelau, Niue, the Cooks, & NZ-administered Antarctica.

Would it be any better, from the perspective of decolonisation, if the Realm of New Zealand, with its parcel of old colonies, became the Realm of Aotearoa New Zealand? The name wouldn’t seem any more representative, for Tokelauans, Cook Islanders, Niueans.

It’d be good to amend or abolish the name New Zealand, with its colonial history, but it seems hard to understand how such a change could make much sense except as part of a constitutional package that involved the ditching of the monarchy & a new r’ship with the Pacific.

As Scott suggests, I think that a name change won’t happen on it’s own. It is likely to be included in monarchy/republic and constitution discussions and possible changes.

I think that eventually New Zealand will be officially renamed as Aotearoa. I’d be happy for that to happen, but I don’t know if I will see it happen in my lifetime.

In the meantime Aotearoa and Aotearoa New Zealand are being increasingly used as alternatives, and I think this de facto change of name will continue to grow strength.

I’ve started to see mentions of ‘decolonisation’ over the last few months, a new term to me. Some comments associated with it have made me wonder what it’s about. What is it?

Decolonization (Wikipedia):

Decolonization (American English) or decolonisation (British English) is the undoing of colonialism, the latter being the process whereby a nation establishes and maintains its domination over one or more other territories.

The concept particularly applies to the dismantlement, during the second half of the 20th century, of the colonial empires established prior to World War I throughout the world. However, decolonization not only includes the complete “removal of the domination of non-indigenous forces” within the geographical space and different institutions of the colonized, but it also includes the intellectual decolonization from the colonizers’ ideas that made the colonized feel inferior.

The “complete removal of the domination of non-indigenous forces” sounds like fairly major, albeit vague, change.

The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has stated that in the process of decolonization there is no alternative to the colonizer but to allow a process of self-determination,[5] but in practice decolonization may involve either nonviolent revolution or national liberation wars by pro-independence groups. It may be intramural or involve the intervention of foreign powers acting individually or through international bodies such as the United Nations.

Decolonization of Oceania

The decolonization of Oceania occurred after World War II when nations in Oceania achieved independence by transitioning from European colonial rule to full independence.

That refers to New Zealand as a colonial power rather than a colonised country.

British Empire:

The Balfour Declaration of 1926 declared the British Empire dominions as equals, and the 1931 Statute of Westminster established full legislative independence for them. The equal dominions were six– Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, the Irish Free State, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa. However, some of the Dominions were already independent de facto, and even de jure and recognized as such by the international community.

1931 – The Statute of Westminster grants virtually full independence to Canada, the Irish Free State, and the Union of South Africa when it declares the British parliament incapable of passing law over these former colonies without their own consent. This doesn’t take effect over New Zealand, Newfoundland, and the Commonwealth of Australia, until independently ratified by these dominions.

So New Zealand is ‘fully independent” of the colonial power the United Kingdom, despite still being a Monarchy with the Queen of England as a head of state – albeit symbolic rather than wielding any power.

This was one of the learnings for Massey PhD candidate Jodi Porter, Ngāi Tai, Whakatōhea, Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, Ngāti Porou who recently attended an international summer school that focused on decolonising knowledge and power at the University Autonoma de Barcelona in Spain.

Ms Porter says while it was great to be exposed to global schools of thought and leading academics from a range of cultures, it made her realise how far Māori have come in their journey to becoming more self-determining. “As Māori, we’re really quite advanced in terms of what we’re doing across a whole range of levels and sectors. Things such as our growing Māori economy and developments in education through kohanga reo, kura kaupapa and whare wānanga are just some of the examples of how we as Māori are actively working towards a decolonial agenda.”

Ms Porter however acknowledges there is still much more to be done. “I think there are significant strategic shifts we can make to allow us to actively participate on the global stage, whilst still being authentic to our Māori ways of being and knowing.

Our unique Māori identity is most definitely our greatest asset. At present, for many of our iwi, the tribal governance structures that we have colonially inherited through government legislation are dominating the way we do things. We really need to challenge the role these entities play in advancing our tribal agendas, because we can see that our iwi have become so corporatised.”

Ms Porter says she was fortunate to attend the summer school alongside another Māori delegate, Dr Jennifer Martin, Te Rarawa, who is currently a lecturer at the University of Auckland. As indigenous academics trying to contribute to discussions that were primarily focused on the global North, the pair felt that the New Zealand and wider Pacific context was very different to the colonised realities of other cultures throughout the world.

“At the end of the day Māori are actually doing things, rather than talking or theorising about change. We are actually living and breathing it by being self-determining.”

Those who argue that Maori oppression is primarily a result of the pakeha colonisation of New Zealand, argue that “decolonialisation” is the way forward for Maori. Such a position has been articulated by Kassie Hartendorp, who spoke at the launch of new left think tank Economic and Social Research Aotearoa (ESRA). Hartendorp equates capitalism in this country with colonisation, and argues that Maori as a whole face a shared position in relation to “colonial” capitalism in Aotearoa New Zealand:

I don’t think if indigenous people were given a space to be able to think about what system would work for them, I don’t think that would look like capitalism… Capitalism as a social relation is not one that upholds mana, it is not one that upholds true connections, it is not one that upholds manaakitanga. The exploitation of surplus value is not on the basis of manaakitanga. That to me is not compatible in any sense… indigenous people did not come up with capitalism, and yet we are the people who bear the brunt of capitalism and colonization most of the time. And that capitalism has been a huge colonizing project, and still is to this very day.”

That is arguing that decolonialisation means somehow undoing capitalism – does that mean socialism? I don’t think that Aotearoa was a socialist society pre-colonisation. It had a number of tribal hereditary class based systems.

Our society is not simple, and there is not a clear delineation between Māori and non-Māori.

Rather than Maori being a homogenous socio-cultural group, Maoridom is in fact made up of peoples with various worldviews, lived experiences, and in various positions of either relative privilege or positions of oppression within society. Reducing all Maori lived reality down to the single factor of being a colonised people, within a colonial capitalist system, fails to account for the growing divisions that exist within Maoridom itself.

I expect that decolonialisation may mean different things to different people who have Māori heritage.

Most people with Māori heritage will also have coloniser (United Kingdom) heritage. Does that create a conflict? Or can they choose the heritage that gives them the best advantages at any given time?

New Zealand now has a new Maori elite that wields significant economic and political power.

Using capitalism.

Maori academic Evan Poata-Smith argues that there is now an increasing income gap within Maoridom itself. His analysis brings into question the very direction of Maori social and economic development over the last few years. He asks the question of which Maori are benefiting from current ideas of Maori development, and which Maori are becoming further disenfranchised and marginalised. Clearly Poata-Smith’s critique is a damning indictment on Treaty politics, which has benefited only a few and left the majority of Maori economically disenfranchised and politically marginalised.

Dealing with treaty claims was supposed to be a form of decolonialisation, but while it may have addressed some things, and at least partially righted some wrongs, it has created different problems.

So, if anti-colonial politics and the politics of indigeneity has failed to benefit the majority of Maori, and has only enriched and empowered an elite of Maoridom, then what is the way forward? The answer lies in a rejection of the obsession with difference and with culture that has dominated leftwing and Maori political discourse over the last few decades, and the need for a leftwing renaissance that focuses instead on radical egalitarian and emancipatory politics.

That final paragraph takes a bit of getting your head around.

Another issue is a possible conflict between somehow returning to pre-colonial Māori power structures and equality – both gender and class. Pre-European Māori had a class system, including a slave class. No one will be advocating a return to this.

What I wish to share within this essay are some of my thoughts on decolonisation and why I believe it must be an essential part of unfolding learning societies. I focus specifically on decolonisation as it relates to Maori women, because I feel though we are of one cultural tradition, Maori women and Maori men have very different experiences and realities.

Colonisation has played a significant role in terms of shifts and changes in the status of Maori women. Pakeha men brought their own gender/race/class notions in regard to Maori women, and we experience/d the imposition of Pakeha worldviews that operated heavily within colonial notions. It is therefore important to look at how independence and sovereignty discourses among Maori, including decolonisation, have been informed by a distinctly colonial patriarchal hegemony.

As a Maori woman, I must assess whether these discourses are representative of a particular political vision, in which women feature only as “a metaphor for the [independent] state and therefore become the scaffolding upon which men construct national identity.”

To allow for a more just, inclusive and sustainable future, I profoundly believe that all aspects of our cultural reclamation should be critiqued. I see gender is a fundamental aspect to this critique. I feel that such critical insights into the concerns of Maori women will be valuable in understanding how decolonisation should manifest in learning societies.

Decolonisation can’t mean going back to how things were pre-colonisation, that is impossible. So it must mean a reassessment of many things in relation to power, money, race and gender.

I believe decolonisation is opening the minds of many Maori and non-Maori in understanding both a truer history of this country and generating new tools to create a more meaningful process of reflection and dialogue.

For non-Maori people, part of participating in decolonisation processes is about recognising their role as belonging to the dominant colonial grouping.

I have no idea what this means.

From my experience as a Maori woman attending decolonisation programs, and carrying out reading in this area, it was a wake-up call of just how colonised I had become with regard to my culture and way of living. For example, I had become alienated from the Maori language and needed to re-learn the language.

Decolonisation is also about my right to determine how I will live with and within Maori communities; to reject non-Maori analysis of situations and events that concern me; and to value myself as a Maori woman. Decolonisation is an essential part of being a Maori woman; it recognises the colonial reality we still live in and provides space for Maori women to be visible, by valuing Maori women’s on-going analysis of all areas of life, such as education, language and health systems.

On ‘Decolonizing Our Lives as Maori’:

Within New Zealand, colonisation is alive and flourishing. It has embarked on a greater journey of alienating the Maori peoples from their lands, practices and fundamental freedoms, now with new and more powerful tools of oppression. Maori sovereignty activist Moana Jackson draws an analogy between the processes of colonisation and of film-making:

“Colonisation is about creating a suspension of disbelief, which requires that those from whom power is to be taken have to suspend their own faith, their own worth, their own goodness, their own sense of value, and their own sense of knowledge. Today, colonisation is a process of image-making, where we’re bombarded by Hollywood about what should be worthy in our lives, and today’s scriptwriters, today’s controllers of knowledge [and therefore research] are the descendants of the old scriptwriters of colonisation.”

The proliferation of base illustrations of Maori is one example of this colonial image-making. Maori are only portrayed in the media when there is something negative to report, and we are continually told our culture is inappropriate and heathen.

There are certainly aspects of this but “only portrayed in the media when there is something negative to report” must be false. And “we are continually told our culture is inappropriate and heathen” may be true in part but this seems to be overstating somewhat.

Genetic modification is also viewed by Maori as another wave of colonisation, as it tramples over Maori traditions and disregards Maori cultural and intellectual property. The New Zealand government has approved genetic engineering experiments, in which synthetic human DNA is injected into cows — despite Maori stating that this is a cultural obscenity in every way possible.

“Viewed by Maori” must surely be ‘viewed by the writer’ and perhaps ‘viewed by some Maori’. I would be surprised if all Maori have the same views on genetic modification.

Today, however, it is important to differentiate between theory and practice. While many Maori believe that the continued depletion of resources necessitates restrictions on human activity, and that a balance is required between development and sustainability for future generations, most do not have the resources or capacities to act on their beliefs. Or more tellingly, they are prohibited by colonial legislation to transfer this theory into practice at the iwi and hapu governance level. Decolonising our knowledge means recognising this gap between Maori cosmology and colonial practices.

Another article is referenced: A Pakeha (non-Maori) Male Perspective of Decolonisation in Aotearoa (Alex Barnes):

The emphasis was on the constructive roles young Pakeha can adopt in building real relationships with Maori, as opposed to blaming individuals, who had little to do with the current systems of oppression and inequality. We realized we had to be open to unlearning behaviours taught by the dominant system/paradigm. But I also understood that unlearning behavior is a hard and complex thing to do, especially when surrounded by an environment that actively discourages it.

What I learned in the decolonisation workshop is this: Being part of the dominant culture is not a bad or shameful thing. Instead, it creates an opportunity to make conscious, constructive steps in understanding the people of the land. It is obvious to me that the challenge starts with myself, with my pronunciation, practice, values and everyday thinking. Decolonisation brings with it the challenge of personal development, which will in time re-shape partnerships, families, communities and nations.

I think I’m only scratching the surface here. This is a starting point in trying to understand what decolonisation means in Aotearoa.

…the recently released Global Peace Index (GPI) named Aotearoa the world’s second safest destination, according to our level of peacefulness.

The GPI includes metrics other than armed conflict; particularly, security spending, civilian displacement, criminal violence and incarceration. High levels of security spending or incarceration may lead temporarily to lower levels of violence, but do not indicate any concrete improvement in peacefulness.

OVER 83 PER CENT OF KIWIS ARE SATISFIED WITH LIFE

The Stats NZ General Social Survey of almost 9000 New Zealanders shows freedom, rights, and peace; and the natural scenery and environment, rated as extremely important factors in defining Aotearoa. However, older people were more likely than young people to rate farming as extremely important in defining New Zealand.

Around 83 per cent rated their overall life satisfaction at 7 or above on a 0–10 scale. The result was similar in 2014.

About 18 per cent of New Zealanders said they had more than enough money to meet everyday needs, up from around 13 per cent in 2008.

Just under 11 per cent of people said they did not have enough money to meet their needs for housing, food, clothing, and necessities – down from the 15 per cent who said they did not have enough for the basics in 2008.

MOST PEOPLE HAVE WORK

Unemployment fell to 3.9 per cent in the September 2018 quarter, the lowest rate since the June 2008 quarter when it was 3.8 per cent.

The fall in unemployment, in tandem with a fall in underemployment, was key to the under-utilisation rate falling to 11.3 per cent.

The fall in the unemployment rate in the latest quarter reflected a fall in the number of unemployed people (down 13,000) and a strong rise in employment (up 29,000). Employment rate rose to 68.3 per cent, the highest rate since the series began more than 30 years ago.

HOMICIDE RATES HAVE FALLEN DRAMATICALLY

Our murder rate has hit a 40-year-low. Figures to June 2018, put the number of murders in New Zealand in 2017 at 35 – a rate of seven for every million people.

Murder rates peaked in the mid-1980s and early 1990s, with the worst year being 1986 when there were 24 murders for every million people, 79 murders in total. The rate has not been at seven or below since 1975, when there were six murders for every million people.

That is a significant drop. Any murder is horrendous for those associated with the victim, but this shows a drop to less than a third of the record levels.

REDUCING PRISON POPULATION

…in just eight months New Zealand’s prison population has dropped by 8 per cent – with more than 800 inmates released between April and late November.

For more than 20 years New Zealand’s prison population has been growing as the crime rate has been dropping. But following an instruction by Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis to get innovative, new schemes are keeping people from going behind bars.

Some of the schemes being tested include the introduction of an app which allows prisoners to track their bail applications and conditions, while sending reminders of upcoming court appearances.

Bail officers are now in prisons and courts to help illiterate prisoners who can’t fill out bail application forms. And in prison, specialised teams work with prisoners due for parole and help them meet the conditions to be eligible first time round.

Prison remains essential for the worst offenders, but the justice system was dysfunctional, resulting in too many people being imprisoned, especially before trial.

TE REO REVIVAL

More than half of New Zealanders say te reo Māori should be a core subject in primary schools.

“Only six in 100 New Zealanders say they can kōrero i te reo Māori or speak Māori very well, well, or fairly well,” statistics senior manager Jason Attewell said. “However, more than half of New Zealanders commonly use te reo words or phrases.”

More than a third of those surveyed said it would be a good idea if all New Zealanders spoke both languages.

This is a good thing as long as it isn’t overdone. National media must give some priority to making themselves understood to as many people as possible and too much te reo can exclude the majority of people from the message, but te reo as an interest or hobby is good for those who want to use it more.

PREMATURE BABIES HAVE STRONG FUTURES

Premature babies born in New Zealand have a better chance to “survive and thrive” than in many other countries around the world, a world-first study showed.

FEWER PEOPLE SMOKING

Although 605,000 New Zealand adults still smoke, more than 700,000 have given up smoking and more than 1.9 million New Zealanders have never smoked regularly.

Smoking was one of the two leading modifiable risks to health in 2013, accounting for about 9 per cent of all illness, disability and premature mortality.

A biennial study of Year 10 students (14 to 15 year-olds) reports daily smoking rates are 2.1 per cent, an all-time low and down from 15.2 per cent when the survey began in 2000. More than 80 per cent of young people have never had tried tobacco.

A very positive trend. While both my parents smoked I have never liked it – and I realised just recently that although I had a few puffs of sorts when a child I never did it ‘properly’ – I never really inhaled into my lungs. I did get far too much second hand smoke, some at home but in particular later at pubs and parties, but now the occasion times I get a whiff of tobacco smoke walking down the street reminds me how horrible it is.

INTERNET IS GOING UNLIMITED

Broadband connections with unlimited data caps made up over 70 per cent of all broadband connections in New Zealand in 2018.

Also, nearly 600,000 homes and businesses now have high-speed fibre-optic internet connections, a 54 per cent increase from 2017.

I ditched my landline a couple of years ago, and connected to fibre earlier this year.

The latest ‘phone book’ is just a marketing publication now, no private phone numbers in it at all (some people must still have landlines).

The list was long for what people loved about the land of the long white cloud: the quality of life, healthcare, work-life balance, safety, tolerance and it goes on.

AIR QUALITY IS MAINLY GOOD FOR KIWIS

Our air quality in New Zealand is generally good and that the overall trend is getting slightly better, with downward trends recorded for some pollutants.

Particulate matter levels have dropped since 2007 – Includes both organic and inorganic particles, such as dust, pollen, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets.

Nitrogen dioxide concentration dropping – Despite more vehicles on the road, there has been a decreasing trend in nitrogen dioxide concentrations between 2004 and 2016.

Light pollution is mainly good – Most of our skies are pristine. However, light pollution in cities means 56 per cent of Kiwis can’t see the Milky Way.

On clear nights I get a very good view of the night sky with the Milky Way clearly able to be seen.

KIWIS HELP OTHERS WITH THEIR TIME AND MONEY

Volunteers contributed over 13.5 million hours working for organisations in a Statistics NZ survey conducted in 2016. At the current minimum hourly wage rate of $16.50, ($17.70 next year) this would equate to just over $222 million every four weeks.

Women had a higher participation rate in volunteering than men – 54.4 per cent of, compared with 45 per cent of men.

I guess that running a blog sort of qualifies.

Good on Stuff for collating a pile of positives – most of us have a lot to be thankful for living in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

There are some obvious answers to why New Zealand wasn’t inhabited by humans earlier, in particular our distance from any other inhabited land. But Polynesians obviously travelled by sea a lot.

Perhaps they didn’t venture south of the Pacific islands sooner. Or maybe they tried and didn’t survive the journey. Or maybe some did survive the journey but left no sign of making it here – they may not have survived once getting here.

I am traveling New Zealand right now, and I read the maori wikipedia page. There it says that the maori arrived only ~800 years ago. Isn’t that a wee bit late? There were people in Australia for 80000 (?)years and Oceania was inhabited for a longer while, too. Is it hard to get from Australia to New Zealand with previous boats/ships? Or were the aboriginese just uninterested in sailing?

The Easter Islands are thought to have been inhabited in the early A.D.s, for example, and they were in contact with other people for a while in the beginning – so there was traveling going on else where.

How certain can we be that the ecology was pristine when the Maori arrived? Were they in contact with other islands/people afterwards?

Aborigines in Australia are an interesting comparison. Australia was much closer to Indonesia when sea levels were lower, so was far more accessible.

The History of Indigenous Australians began at least 65,000 years ago when humans first populated Australia.

The origin of first humans to populate the southern continent remains a matter of conjecture and debate. Some anthropologist believe they could have arrived as a result of the earliest human migrations out of Africa. Although they likely migrated to the territory, later named Australia, though Southeast Asia they are not demonstrably related to any known Asian or Polynesian population. There is evidence of genetic and linguistic interchange between Australians in the far north and the Austronesian peoples of modern-day New Guinea and the islands, but this may be the result of recent trade and intermarriage.

At the time of first European contact, it is generally estimated that between 315,000 to 750,000 people lived in Australia, in diverse groups, but upper estimates place the total population as high as 1.25 million.

It is believed that the first early human migration to Australia was achieved when this landmass formed part of the Sahul continent, connected to the island of New Guinea via a land bridge. It is also possible that people came by island hopping via an island chain between Sulawesi and New Guinea and the other reaches North Western Australia via Timor.

The most generally accepted date for first arrival is between 40,000–80,000 years BP

Aboriginal peoples are the oldest surviving culture in the world, having established ways of managing their land and society that were sustainable and ensured good health. They have occupied Australia for at least 60,000 years. While there was significant contact and trade between the diverse peoples who inhabited this continent, there was no contact, no exchange of cultures or knowledge between Indigenous Australians and the rest of the world.

Aborigine history is fascinating, but appears to be unrelated to Aotearoa history until Cook’s voyage in 1788.

The Aborigines had a huge continent to inhabit so may not have had much if any inclination to explore far by sea, especially to the south (and New Zealand to the south east).

The Pacific migrations happened over the last 3,000-4,000 years, and are thought to have reached Aotearoa between 1200 and 1300 AD – that’s relatively recent.

The first people to reach New Zealand were Polynesians who set out from the central Pacific on deliberate voyages of discovery in large canoes. They reached New Zealand, in the south-west corner of the Pacific, between 1200 and 1300 AD. Around 2,000–3,000 years before this, the Lapita people, ancestors of the Polynesians, had colonised the far-flung islands of the Pacific from South-East Asia.

Hawaii and Rapa Nui were distant from the bulk of Pacific Islands and were inhabited relatively late in history, but well before Aotearoa.

It took European explorers quite a while to venture down our way. Abel Tasman got here in 1642 but that may have been more because of weather than intent.

Tasman sailed from Batavia on 14 August 1642 and arrived at Mauritius on 5 September 1642.

Because of the prevailing winds Mauritius was chosen as a turning point. After a four-week stay on the island both ships left on 8 October using the Roaring Forties to sail east as fast as possible. On 7 November snow and hail influenced the ship’s council to alter course to a more north-eastern direction, expecting to arrive one day at the Solomon Islands.

On 24 November 1642 Abel Tasman reached and sighted the west coast of Tasmania,

Proceeding south Tasman skirted the southern end of Tasmania and turned north-east. He then tried to work his two ships into Adventure Bay on the east coast of South Bruny Island where he was blown out to sea by a storm.

The next day, an attempt was made to land in North Bay. However, because the sea was too rough the carpenter swam through the surf and planted the Dutch flag.

For two more days, he continued to follow the east coast northward to see how far it went. When the land veered to the north-west at Eddystone Point, he tried to keep in with it but his ships were suddenly hit by the Roaring Forties howling through Banks Strait.

The impenetrable wind wall indicated that here was a strait, not a bay. Tasman was on a mission to find the Southern Continent, not more islands, so he abruptly turned away to the east and continued his continent-hunting.

He journeyed eastwards well south of the Australian continent.

After some exploration, Tasman had intended to proceed in a northerly direction but as the wind was unfavourable he steered east. The expedition endured an extremely rough voyage and in one of his diary entries Tasman credited his compass, claiming it was the only thing that had kept him alive.

On 13 December 1642 they sighted land on the north-west coast of the South Island, New Zealand, becoming the first Europeans to do so.

“We believe that this is the mainland coast of the unknown Southland’. Tasman thought he had found the western side of the long-imagined Terra Australis that stretched across the Pacific to the Southern tip of South America.

After sailing north, then east for five days, the expedition anchored about 7 km from the coast off what is now believed to have been Golden Bay.

Tasman then sailed north up the west coast of the North Island and continued north to the Pacific Islands.

While the location of some land of New Zealand was now known to Europeans, it was not until James Cook got here on 6 October 1769 that they came down our way and recorded finding land.

Our country is increasingly being referred to as Aotearoa, and particularly as ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’.

Political parties, unions, public organisations use the term.

‘Aotearoa New Zealand’ is also popular for company names. Searching the companies register shows 85 match ″aotearoa new zealand″.

It appears that our country is gradually being renamed. Some of this is happening by popular adoption, but there also appears to be deliberate intent to rename our country by stealth.

I like the name Aotearoa. It is the Maori preference, and has become uniquely ours.

I don’t have any empathy with ‘New Zealand’ as a name. The ‘new’ makes it sound like a colonial takeover. ‘There is little or no connection between here and ‘Zealand’, an island in Denmark.

If we had a choice I would likely vote for a name change to Aotearoa.

But I object to it being effectively adopted by stealth.

We should be having a proper open discussion about the name and identity of our country, we should have a binding referendum on whether the name should be changed officially.

I have concerns about how that process would go. The flag debate was corrupted by partisan political interests, and showed how immature we can be when debating important issues. It also showed how disruptive some people can get when they don’t get what they want.

So if we debate a country official name change there is a risk of it becoming an ugly shit fight.

But I think we should follow proper democratic processes and public discussion on this, rather than let a creeping name change happen by stealth.

It is likely that some will claim, as happened in the flag debate, that a name change couldn’t or shouldn’t happen without a comprehensive change to how our country is run, whether we become a republic, whether we adopt a constitution, and to what degree and how the Treaty of Waitangi becomes embedded as not just a founding document but also as am ongoing dictate of how we do things.

But doing all of this together would be to much to deal with at one time. And it looks a long way off, there is not drive to do all this, especially while a queen on the other side of the world remains on her throne.

I think we should be up front in discussing the name of our country, and this can easily be done as a separate decision. It should be done as a separate decision, avoiding complications of other issues. It shouldn’t have to be an ‘all or nothing’ thing with the flag and constitution and republic decisions.

I’m quite happy with ‘Aotearoa’, but I want an open and honest debate rather than creeping change by stealth.

And the voice which most needs to be heard, the key note of our harmony here in Aotearoa New Zealand, is the voice of Māori. Why? To extend the metaphor, the first human voices in this land were those of Tangata Whenua.

It is Māori heritage and culture which makes this country unique – as many of us Pākehā travellers have discovered when asked to “sing a song from your country” and we find ourselves limping through a half-remembered version of Pōkarekare Ana.

Singing that a bit is one of my few memories of Māori at school.

More importantly, it is thanks to the Treaty of Waitangi that we non-Māori have the opportunity to live here. We have been invited to add our voices to the original songs.

We non-Māori, including we Pākehā.

The term Pākehā has had some bad vibes for some, but when I investigated i found that the term refereed to “the soft and loud sounds of the language of Captain Cook and his sailors” load see The soft and loud of “Pākehā”.

I am quite comfortable with being referred to as Pākehā, even though I do more soft than loud.

I have no problem with more Māori being taught in schools – in my time it was disgracefully ignored, along with important New Zealand history.

I don’t mind some use of Māori in media, but i think that some of it is overdone. Good on RNZ for using the native language more, but for me it is sometimes overdone and I switch off.

It is probably near impossible to get the right balance for everyone. Younger people in particular who have had the opportunity to learn some Māori will benefit from it’s wider use. It’s not about me and my history, it’s about the future of New Zealand, of Aotearoa (a name I would be happy to use if it became official).

Bits of Māori speech in Parliament is lost on me but it’s probably no worse than the vast vapid verbiage used there.

I cringe when listening to our God laced dirge of a national anthem, but it is far more tolerable listening to the Māori version.

We have a unique history which has a strong Māori flavour, and that should be a part of our identity, and it should be something we can be proud of.

Māori can certainly be a harmonious language when at it’s best (it’s use in hakas is not at it’s best). The world won’t end, the sky won’t fall in, and the long white cloud won’t evaporate if we hear some more of it.

After te Tiriti finished being signed by September 1840 the nine sheets made their way back one by one to the offices of the government in Okiato, old Russell.

When the government moved to Auckland in 1842 te Tiriti moved too. By 1841 the nine sheets had been put for safekeeping in an especially requisitioned metal trunk. This likely saved them when the offices of government caught fire in 1842 and burned down.

The sheets, along with He Whakaputanga most likely, were saved by a quick-thinking records clerk.

The government records back then were all kept in the office of the Colonial Secretary, the Governor’s right-hand man and the guy who got all the shit done.

When the capital moved to Wellington in 1865 te Tiriti came too with the rest of the records of government.

The period of damage that you refer to occurred some time between the years 1877 and 1908. The documents were kept, rolled up we think, in the basement of the Govt buildings. Which is now the law school on Lambton Quay.

They were discovered, all damaged, in about 1908 by Dr Thomas Hocken, who for reasons I’ve never been able to get to the bottom of was fossicking round down there and luckily knew what he’d found.

The distinctive damaged shape of the Waitangi sheet comes from its having been nibbled by rats or mice. It’s made of parchment, animal skin. You’ll see the other paper sheets are not so nibbled = not as delicious to critters. There’s one other parchment sheet, also nibbled.

Incidentally we recently discovered through DNA testing that the Waitangi parchment is made of goat skin, the Herald sheet from calf skin. I digress.

Fortunately back in 1877 the Govt Print tested their new photolithographic machine on the Treaty sheets, so we know what was on the parts that were nibbled away between 1877 and about 1908.

After that they were taken into the care of the Department of Internal Affairs (that’s what the Colonial Secretary’s office had been renamed to).

They’ve had several repairs, the most recent major one in 1987.

Once the National Archives was instituted in 1957 they came under the care of the Chief Archivist and have been there ever since.

The archivists and conservators who look after Te Tiriti now love it with all our hearts.

I don’t like what seems to be happening, change by stealth. Our country is currently called ‘New Zealand’ and I don’t think it should be referred to as ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’ – yet at least.

We should discuss it openly and decide whether we want to continue to be known as New Zealand, or if we should revert to the indigenous version, Aotearoa.

I’d be quite happy for and supportive of a change to Aotearoa, but it should be decided, not imposed by creeping imposition.

‘New Zealand’ isn’t even the first European name for our country.

In 1642 Abel Tasman named it Staten Landt.

In 1645 Dutch cartographers renamed it Nova Zeelandia.

Over a century later James Cook anglicised it to New Zealand.

‘Aotearoa’ has also evolved as a name.It originally referred to the North Island but gradually became used for and accepted as a name for the whole country.

The common translation is ‘land of the long white cloud’ but ‘long bright world’ or ‘land of abiding day’ are also possibilities.

It can depend on how the word is broken down.

Aotea: a cloudy-white or blue-grey variety of greenstone resembling white clouds
or:Aotea: canoe that brought Turi and his people from Hawaiki, eventually arriving in Taranaki where they intermarried with the tangata whenua tribes

Roa is also the name for the great spotted kiwi, Apteryx haastii, but ‘land of the transparent kiwi’ is probably not a goer.

I like playing with language but that’s really a diversion.

Regardless of what it was originally intended to mean ‘Aotearoa’ is widely accepted as one name for our country. I’d be quite happy if it became our sole name and ‘New Zealand’ drifted off into a part of our history.